RUSSIA'S RADICAL NEW FIGHTER
Russia’s fabled Sukhoi Design Bureau builds the S-37,a 21st century fighter to go
head-to- head with our F-22.
By MALCOLM V. LOWE
Photos by Katsuhiko Tokunaga/DACT and courtesy of R-Avix; Illustration by John Batchelor
Posted on 09/30/2002 2:30:23 PM PDT by vannrox
Named Berkut, which translates to mean Golden Eagle or Royal Eagle, the S-37 bears an "S" rather than an "Su" designation because it is an experimental rather than production aircraft. Design of the aircraft, originally known as the S-32, began around 1983, and drew on many years of FSW research that had commenced in the former Soviet Union during the 1940s—initially using captured Nazi technology. The Russians were also well aware of the Grumman X-29 FSW research aircraft, as two of these single-seat, single-engine planes were being tested in America between 1984 and the early 1990s (see "The Outer Limits").
The S-37, however, is almost twice the size of the X-29, with a markedly different configuration. It has a length of 74 ft. and a wingspan of 54 ft. 10 in., with a maximum takeoff weight of just under 75,000 pounds. Power comes from two Aviadvigatel (Perm) D-30F6 turbofans, each developing 34,177 pounds of static thrust with afterburners—but without a thrust-vector ring. Together the engines give the S-37 a respectable, if unspectacular, top speed of around Mach 1.6. The aircraft may be re-engined with Sukhoi's preferred option of two Lyulka (Saturn) AL-41F turbofans with thrust vectoring, when these formidable engines—which pour out 39,350 pounds of static thrust with afterburners—become available.
Unconventional Design
The real innovations in the S-37 lie within its unconventional design. The swept-forward wing is part of a so-called "tandem triplane" arrangement, blending all-moving forward canards with the swept-forward wing, a short-span broad-chord swept horizontal tail plus outward-canted vertical tailplanes. To speed up manufacturing, some parts of the S-37 were borrowed from the Su-27 series, including the undercarriage and vertical tails, but the main flying surfaces are all new. The S-37's FSW layout meets Sukhoi's desire to create a fighter with super-maneuverability—one capable of maintaining stability and control at almost any altitude and angle of attack. Critical to achieving this is the aircraft's computerized fly-by-wire control system, probably similar to that used in the Su-35 and Su-37, which allows for the basically unstable aerodynamics of the aircraft to be under control at all times. Vital in dogfights, this system, coupled with the FSW layout, helps the S-37 reach the optimum attitude for launching missiles at short- and medium-range opponents. Pogosyan, formerly the chief designer of the S-37, points out that agility was a top priority. "We were looking for the technical solutions to increase aircraft maneuverability in close combat."
The S-37's forward-swept, slightly tapered wing has leading- edge flaps and trailing-edge flaps and ailerons. Compared to a normal swept-back wing, the FSW potentially has better lift, good antispin and stall resistance, and allows a shorter takeoff run. At transonic speeds (around Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.3), it has a better lift-to-drag ratio than a conventional wing. During flight, airflow is directed inward across the wing’s section, thus preventing aileron and tip stall at higher angles of attack, and allowing better control response at high angles of attack. That’s great for dogfighting. The key to all this is the use of up to 90 percent composite materials in the wing’s structure. Sukhoi has made a major breakthrough in the use of advanced composites in the S-37's wing, and these have proven able to cope with the considerable bending and structural loading on this type of wing during close-in maneuvering across a wide speed range.
The FSW concept is very different from plans we’ve seen for the stealthy F-22 Raptor, its potential American rival (see "21st Century Fighter," Dec. 1999). Although the S-37 does have some stealth design features, and may be covered with radar-absorbent coatings, low detectability is secondary to the maneuverability created by the FSW.
Secret Flight Tests
The S-37 first flew in September 1997 at the Russian experimental base at Zhukovsky near Moscow. Test flights have been successful so far, with Sukhoi claiming that the S- 37 has made more than 120 flights. But many questions remain.
Will it remain simply as a proof-of-concept aircraft, with no actual production S-37 ever made? Will its radical technology be used in forthcoming Russian fighter designs, perhaps to meet the Russian air force’s future heavy fighter requirements? Or will it form the basis of the already-rumored S-54 light fighter, a possible Russian rival to America's Joint Strike Fighter? It can certainly be said that a production model of the S-37 would be a match for any Western fighter.
The S-37's big rival in Russia is the MiG 1.44. This experimental twin-engined fighter first flew, after many lengthy delays, in February 2000. Most Western observers believe that the MiG design, and not the S-37, will ultimately lead to a production fighter. However, Sukhoi has a possible trump card. The new Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is particularly friendly toward Sukhoi, and his planned reforms of Russia's aircraft industry could benefit Sukhoi. Pogosyan tells PM he is upbeat: "We have a good design and scientific organization, which enables us to successfully compete with the West."
Much of the S-37 program remains veiled in secrecy, but its potentially world-beating design truly extends the boundaries of state-of-the-art fighter technology.
Don't know about that, I only know what I read about it. If this design was viable, surely the Wonks would have pursued it further. But they didn't. The thing "flies backwards", therefore if something goes wrong, a pilot cannot and does not have the opportunity to right the wrong. And that just ain't fair. They can use the design in UAV's in the future I suppose. But, if I had the ability, I wouldn't want to be enclosed in a machine that blows up if the computers fail. That's just me.
If you have not read Red Rabbit by Clancy, you should buy a copy and read it.
Clancy agrees with your reply. Let the commies have a 7 to 10 year old plane or some other war toy, and they would would spend billions trying to copy it and never really doing it correctly with their terrible quality control and production standards.
I am always amazed at the accuracy of Clancy's information, he has some excellent sources.
When we cleaned the clocks on their step son army, the Iraqis in Desert Storm, they knew that it was over for them. Their tanks, migs and tactics were burnt and scattered all over Iraq in a few days. A lot of Russian advisors went up in smoke too.
The Soviets knew it was over before Desert Storm. Their strategies for the European Theater had always been formed around massive tank formations. During the 80s the Soviets were invited to participate as observers in a Nato exercise. Nato massed several hundred unmanned outdated tanks on a battlefield and invited a Soviet General to press a button initiating an artillery barrage utilizing precision guided munitions. All of the tanks were destroyed in a matter of seconds. The General knew and reported to Moscow that the situation was hopeless. Artillery is much less expensive to build than tanks and Nato already had a lot of artillery.
The ChiCom missile guidance systems apparently depend our our GPS satellites. Any bets where one of those missiles would end up if launched with an American city target.
LOL! Sometimes providing technical assistance to the enemy isn't treason.
I had not heard about the condoms, what a great story.
There is a VFW post where some of those construction workers are members that has one of the "Small" condoms and its original packaging in the trophy case.
Thanks for the heads up on Clancy's Red Rabbit. I have been meaning to buy the book but have been too busy.
The beast will look nice on a pedestal outside one of their airbases but it won't provide any military advantage. I've mentioned before that pilots I knew in the Air Force were't afraid of Third World pilots in "better aircraft" Russia's pilots are/always were Third World! It's the pilot and tactics not the plane that wins air battles! The Top Gun experience during the Viet Nam war proved that training and tactics trump hardware every time.
The Russians haven't made a combat aircraft with less power:weight than the US counterpart in the last 25 years and I can't I can't see then starting now.
Tu-160 > B1B
Su-24 > F-111
Su-25 > A-10
MiG-29 > F-18 or F-16
and the closest to the F-15C
Su-27 25 tonne thrust for 23 tonne operating weight had the edge over the F-15.
Likewise, I haven't seen reliable operational/gross weights for the S-37. Given that its max take-off weight (the only thing that I've seen) is in between the -15C and -15E, and that it's a similar size, I'd expect that its operational weight is also in between the two (and definitely under 70,000 lbs). That'll uphold the recent Russian tradition of having a high thrust/weight ratio.
All that being said, the difference between a manueverable plane and an effective weapon is training (and to a lesser extent, avionics). There's where the Russians have fallen short over the last 30 years, and we've largely upheld the traditions that you and your flying mates started.
I'm reminded of the American experience in Vietnam with the SAM-2 and SAM-3 *flying telephone poles* which when launched could easily outrun a Phantom, Thud or Skyhawk, but which couldn't maneuver with them- one good twisty turn away, and the missile's seeker head broke contact and the unit self-destructed. Swell if only one was chasing you, but they were too often launched in multiples.
The thought of a capable Sukhoi fighter, particularly if carrying its own RPV fighter drone capable of launching multiple missiles along the lines of the modified air-to-air block II Stingers now fitted on some U.S. Helicopters [and other applications] all while a pilot is trying to outfly an R-77 *AMRAAMski* or R-33, particularly while also trying to dodge SAMs fired at him [or Shilkas, if down on the deck] is not a particularly happy one, if admittedly pretty much a worse-case scenario. Oh yeah, add in he's configured for a strike mission and carrying his LANTIRN pods.
For the immediate future, the real advantage the F-15E has is the GIB, at least in the ground support and strike mission role...and perhaps soon, as a *tailgunner* dealing with multiple missile threats via active countermeasures as well.
-archy-/-
So it was. And the lessons learned from the construction of those two aircraft are incorporated in the F-22, as well as in the F35 made by Lockheed-Martin that is likely to supplant or replace most of the 100-million per F22s, as well as the Marine AV-8B Harriers and USAF A10s.
Proof-of-concept prototypes and database-builders by Grumman. Refinement and fielded design by Lockheed-Martin.
-archy-/-
Published reports for the Prototype S-37, whose reliability is an open question, and of course are subject to change, indicate:
Empty weight: 24,000 kg/ 52,910 pounds
Max takeoff weight: 34,000 kg/ 74,960 pounds
Wingspan: 16,7 meters
Length OA: 22,6 meters
estimated performance:
Max speed at height: 2,500 kph/ 1350 knots
at S/L: 1,400 kph/ 756 knots
Service Ceiling: 18,000 meters/ 59,050 feet
Range, at height, max fuel: 3,300 km/2050 miles/1782 NM
Armament: 12 hardpoints
6-8 underwing
6-4 conformal underfuselage
air-to-air: R-77, R-77PD, R-73, K-74
air-surface: X-29T, X-29L, X-59M, X-31P, X-31A, KAB-500, KAB-1500
Old story. The version I heard occured during WW2. The Brits were using large condom-like rubbers on the barrels of their guns to keep sand and such from getting in, and theoreticly Churchill had the boxes labeled "condom-size small"
If that were the case, it would make my assumption that the operational weight is somewhere between the F-15C and F-15E correct.
Indeed, that may have been the precise design goal the boffins at Sukhoi were told to attain. Though building to the specs of that now-elderly [and proven!] design may not terribly extend the state of the art, it's a smart, conservative approach that avoids reinventing the wheel, and it suggests they're building to impress potential customers for massive foreign sales, as well as for their own uses.
But, yep, looks like you've called it, though the design is certainly subject to revision, particularly in the powerplant department.
-archy-/-
You do realize that the Iraqies were using 1970's T-72 and BMP-1 vehicles against M1 tanks....a 1980's (late) tech? You do realize that the Iraqies didn't even have DU rounds, right? That they couldn't penetrate modern armor, because teh Soviets didn't sell it to them? You do realize that these are Arabs you're talking about, who out numbering the Jews 10:1 have lost 4 wars to them?
I wouldn't be, this is old new news and the Russians are probably trying to stay in the arms race for the simple fact they have China as a neighbor. Nobody ever thinks about that, but they've had skirmishes over the years, and they are vastly outnumbered.
Read later ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.